The classic album was born out of the discord of the late '60s and The Beatles' disintegration, and remains poignant in today's political discord.
- Samuel Buntz

By Samuel Buntz
NOVEMBER 15, 2018
“The White Album” is a collection of brilliant fragments, along with some rather un-brilliant but still interesting fragments. It is the greatest album to be comprised largely of what would normally be called “filler”––great filler, conscious filler, artistic filler, but filler nonetheless.

Yet in the wild context of “The White Album,” these songs about birthday parties and non-stop flights to Moscow find their proper place and shine. It is a remarkably chaotic album. Yet as Paul McCartney himself notes, “There’s a fine line between chaos and creation,” and the album is triumphantly creative...

To me, The Beatles® are a band that made so damned much money, initially as a traditional, performing, touring band, that record companies freely gave them free rein, and lots and lots of cash, with which to do whatever the hell they wanted. Studios simply didn’t care if the “Fab Four” ran miles-and-miles of recording tape in the most expensive recording studio in London. They knew that, no matter what they eventually came up with, and no matter how much money they’d spent doing it, the public would continue buying it – forever.

The Beatles used this extraordinary power to define what commercial popular music would soon become, first demonstrating that an album could be made entirely in a studio and that it didn’t have to be backed-up with live performances. Long before Boston, The Beatles became a pure-studio band. And, because they had carte blanche financially, they learned how to use the studio as an instrument and pushed what technicians were able and willing to do. Audiences came to expect that their material would have superb production qualities, thanks to the skills of Alan Parsons and many others.

Then, they demonstrated the commercial viability of the “pure concept” album, such as Sgt. Pepper, and of the album that had no singular underlying concept at all, such as White. In the tumultuous political times in which they lived and in which they sold music, they shrewdly sold music with an ambiguous message to buyers who were thinking ambiguous thoughts. With White, they chose the best cover-picture at all: there wasn’t one. “Simply irresistible.”

But, they had the musical chops. They proved their ability to produce songs and arrangements of those songs that, strange though they sometimes were, were enduring. By Gawd, they could write music. The one thing that you could say for sure about the next Beatles album is that you had no idea what “the next Beatles album” actually would be – except that it would be good.

Quote by: MikeRobinson To me, The Beatles® are a band that made so damned much money, initially as a traditional, performing, touring band, that record companies freely gave them free rein, and lots and lots of cash, with which to do whatever the hell they wanted. Studios simply didn’t care if the “Fab Four” ran miles-and-miles of recording tape in the most expensive recording studio in London. They knew that, no matter what they eventually came up with, and no matter how much money they’d spent doing it, the public would continue buying it – forever.

The Beatles used this extraordinary power to define what commercial popular music would soon become, first demonstrating that an album could be made entirely in a studio and that it didn’t have to be backed-up with live performances. Long before Boston, The Beatles became a pure-studio band. And, because they had carte blanche financially, they learned how to use the studio as an instrument and pushed what technicians were able and willing to do. Audiences came to expect that their material would have superb production qualities, thanks to the skills of Alan Parsons and many others.

Then, they demonstrated the commercial viability of the “pure concept” album, such as Sgt. Pepper, and of the album that had no singular underlying concept at all, such as White. In the tumultuous political times in which they lived and in which they sold music, they shrewdly sold music with an ambiguous message to buyers who were thinking ambiguous thoughts. With White, they chose the best cover-picture at all: there wasn’t one. “Simply irresistible.”

But, they had the musical chops. They proved their ability to produce songs and arrangements of those songs that, strange though they sometimes were, were enduring. By Gawd, they could write music. The one thing that you could say for sure about the next Beatles album is that you had no idea what “the next Beatles album” actually would be – except that it would be good.

Yes, it is one of my personal favorites too. I sorely wish that today’s recording industry was still willing to “take a chance,” because they have the marketing power and the financial power still ... but they waste it.

Of course I am perfectly aware that the industry, even then, relied upon selling “pablum things” in order to finance the more-speculative ventures, a double-handful of which since turned into endless cash-cows. But today I don’t see the industry investing in the new-music that is (still, somehow) being produced today. And I also cannot say that the investments (sic) that I do see them making will ever acquire the endlessly-money-making title of “Classic.”

Interesting to listen to the remastered version. I think I like the original analog release better – "as heard on my 33-1/3 RPM turntable with cheap room speakers." Or is the difference because I'm listening to a digital file on MacBook Pro speakers?